mentalgymnast wrote:It is this dilemma that we run into over and over again. If God cares he would lay things out explicitly so that no mistake can be made, per Jenkins.
Evidence for Zarahemla.
I guess that my first question would be, "why Zarahemla"?
More to the point - Christianity isn't predicated on a particular lost town being rediscovered. I'm sure that there are a number of Biblical locations that cannot be confirmed with surety but they don't dictate if Christianity - or even the Bible itself - is 'valid'.
But, let's say that we had a particular town in mind, from the Bible - let's say, Babel. We can't confirm that it exists - for whatever reason - so we move on to another target, of which the Bible has many. And we'll find some that exist, and we'll see archaeological evidence that confirms at least some social, theological, fiscal, legal, -
whatever - aspects that link those sites to the Biblical narrative in some or many ways.
Using the same methodology with the Book of Mormon - what would our next target be?
There isn't one. We cannot find a site that exists in South America that bears any true resemblance or shares the social, fiscal, legal, or theological characteristics of the alternate reality described in the Book of Mormon. All of the basics are remarkably different - timekeeping, sculpture, deities, social structures, recreation (
decapitated head soccer, anyone?), monetary systems, foods grown, animals used, methods of worship - all seem very different than what was described in the Book of Mormon - regardless of folks as far back as Hugh Nibley trying to draw feeble connections. The
sheer mass of differences is overwhelming.
That's why we have the response that Jenkins gives.
Just a sherd - something that can be definitively linked to the Book of Mormon narrative. Yes, it doesn't need to say, 'Made in Zarahemla' - it doesn't need to. It just needs to conform to the general unique societal aspects outlined in the Book of Mormon, as opposed to being some sort of rigid minor utilitarian item like a device to hold grain... yet we cannot even find an example of the latter that fits Smith's tale.
And that is why Ruben's challenge to Jenkins is
not really much of a challenge. It asserts that we conclude that if we cannot find 'a piece of
Zarahemla' that we must still acknowledge that the Book of Mormon can be a reality. Notwithstanding that we aren't looking specifically for Zarahemla - we're just looking for
anything amongst the vast selection of Mesoamerican ruins and artifacts that corresponds with the particular and important aspects of Nephite and Lamanite history and culture. Yet despite the best efforts of many dedicated and talented LDS,
this has yet to be accomplished.
It isn't just Zarahemla. It's
everything, and
nothing is the result.
mentalgymnast wrote:So we are left with: No God...or no God who really cares...or faith is necessary for some reason...or Joseph Smith was a fraud along with so many others (back to God doesn't care...). So if one chooses to believe in God he/she is left with 1. a God who doesn't care that people are believing crazy stuff...
... Which happens, and is the situation for the majority of the Earth's population by even your own reckoning. In other words, how many people alive today believe in what the Church labels as the One True Doctrine? Why does anyone else believe anything different?
Thus we can conclude that God may not care that some people believe 'crazy stuff'. Maybe it really isn't about believing 'crazy stuff' at all, anyway, be it that the world rides on the back of a turtle, or that we should baptize dead people.
Instead, maybe it's all about how we treat ourselves and the others around us.That would be something that we can all use our free will and mental faculties to engage in - no matter what our faith beliefs are. That's a fair test, and a fair enough task to ask.
mentalgymnast wrote:... or 2. a God who for some reason wants us to live by faith.
This isn't mutually exclusive of the prior item.
But, if or no - If the idea is to live by faith in God, then why does a believer need a quorum of mortals to tell him what to believe about God? If that's really the case, then you are back to #1 on your list - i.e., God doesn't really care, because that quorum of old men has a very small audience, and that audience can really just be under the same test as everyone else... of doing right by others
regardless - or
in spite of - whatever peculiar conditions and requirements dreamed up by that quorum of old men are added to the list.
mentalgymnast wrote:I can see why some would take the route of 'no belief in God' because that simplifies everything. But what about the rest of us that choose to believe? Choosing a God who doesn't care doesn't really add up. So we're back to faith.
This thought is incomplete.
'Doesn't care'... in what? Crazy stuff? Or in God? Or in being the best person one could be to others? Or in love, friendship, kindness, compassion, empathy? Pizza?
Seriously, what is 'the thing'?
mentalgymnast wrote:The Book of Mormon must ultimately be accepted on faith. Thus, no Zarahemla and everything else you can throw in that same direction. And Nahom is a possibility but not a sure thing.
The Book of Mormon does not necessarily need to be accepted on faith if evidence exists that confirms a number of aspects of it. And it's a false dilemma to be imposed on someone to say that the entire Book
must be accepted or not on faith anyway. One could easily separate out Biblical geography from certain theological precepts within it but that doesn't 'invalidate the Bible'; that concept is meaningless - as much as saying 'The Church is True'. These are nice catchphrases, but ultimately serve only to shame or coerce people into believing one set of things or another.
mentalgymnast wrote:Is it that simple? I'm probably missing something...
It depends. But you are posing arguably simple challenges and predetermining complicated conditions to either satisfy or nullify them.